IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.29899/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
Mrs. Khamrunnisa, W/o Mr. Mohammed Sardar, Aged about 62 years, R/at # 13, ‘B’ Street, Bharathinagar, Bengaluru – 560 001. … Petitioner (By Sri Raghunath M.D., Advocate) And:
1. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, N.R. Square, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Assistant Revenue Officer, Ward No.91, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Near Halasuru Tank, Bangalore – 560 052.
3. The Muslim Baid Association of Southern India, # 84, Armstrong Road, Bharathinagar, Bengaluru – 560 001 By its Secretary. … Respondents (By Sri K.V. Mohan Kumar, Advocate for R1 & R2; Sri Mehter M. Azzam, Advocate for R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to allow the writ petition with cost; direct the R-1 and R-2 to take suitable action against the R-3 by demolishing the illegal constructions put up by the R-3 violating sanction plan and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the property morefully described in ‘A’ schedule. The petitioner submits that respondent No.3 has put up construction at property No.88 opposite the property of petitioner contrary to the sanctioned plan. Necessary direction was sought to be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take suitable action against respondent No.3 by demolishing the illegal construction put up by respondent No.3 in violation of the sanctioned plan.
2. Upon issuance of notice, respondent No.3 has put in appearance and is represented by counsel and so also respondent – BBMP is represented by its counsel.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent – BBMP submits that taking note of the complaint of petitioner, a provisional order has been passed under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 [‘the Act’ for brevity] calling upon the third respondent to show cause as to why the provisional order is not to be confirmed. Subsequently, the confirmation order has been passed under Section 321(3) of the Act calling upon the third respondent to remove the illegal construction.
4. It is further undertaken that necessary action will be taken in accordance with law pursuant to the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act.
5. In view of the same, no further orders are required to be passed, as the grievance of the petitioner has been responded to appropriately. However, it is made clear that respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take further action pursuant to the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act till the illegalities are addressed and as long as there is no impediment for exercise of such power.
Accordingly, petition is disposed off subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR